A belated post....
Today, I will explore the notion of virtuosity and what it means to me. Let's start with the Oxford Dictionary Online's (ODO) definition of a virtuoso: "a person highly skilled in music or another artistic pursuit." Seems simple enough, but when talking about new words or ideas, I find it instructive to consider the edges. No one would argue against applying the appellation to Yehudi Menuhin, Arthur Rubinstein, or Jacqueline du Pré, so heaping more praise on them does little to clarify anything. But what about soloists less celebrated? Do they deserve the designation? Is skill all that matters or does depth of expression make a difference? What about dancers, authors, or painters? Why are we more likely to proclaim a poet a genius than a virtuoso?
What is the difference between a genius and a virtuoso, anyway? ODO says a genius is "a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect." In common usage, we do usually associate geniuses with exceptional intellect (e.g. Hawking, Wittgenstein, Ken Jennings), creativity (e.g. Shakespeare, Mozart, Kandinsky), or both (e.g. da Vinci, Nabokov, Edison). Virtuosi are associated with exceptional skill in performance, especially live performance. Sometimes they display genius in this regard (e.g. Hilary Hahn's thoughtful interpretation of the fiendish Schoenberg Violin Concerto), sometimes not (e.g. Lang Lang's over-dramatic interpretations of, well, everything).
So that's a start towards our target. Although the poet is highly skilled in an artistic pursuit, it is his creativity that we cherish, and so he is dubbed a genius. Likewise with a composer of music. But the prima ballerina or the marimbist (as in my last post) is cherished for her skill in execution. There is creativity involved, to be sure. But I can come up with a creative interpretation of the Moonlight sonata. That does not mean it will be skillfully-executed unless maybe I record a dozen takes and splice together the best moments. In front of an audience, there is only one chance to get it right. It is the singular nature of this experience and the acknowledgment of the requisite talent and dedication that compels us to bestow upon our virtuosi a title greater than "performer".
But how good do you have to be? Do we call every solo musician who tours internationally a virtuoso? What about those musicians who play full-time with orchestras? There is a different emphasis in their performance, but it is still performance. Unfortunately, I think this is where arguments are unavoidable. I, personally, think the world's major orchestras boast some of our greatest virtuosi, and some do manage to do some solo touring. If you consider that the solo bassoon or French horn repertoire is only so large, effectively precluding a full-time solo career for many instruments, then one understands why this is so. But the question changes for violinists or cellists. Where do the sets of virtuosi, solo violinists, and orchestra violinists intersect? This boundary to the definition, I am afraid, must remain a subjective matter.
What about popular musicians, like John Petrucci of Dream Theater, Mariah Carey, or this drummer? Martial artists like Bruce Lee, Jet Li, or this guy? Or sports greats like, well, ok, I don't know sports. Take your pick. They are all celebrated for the skill which they demonstrate in live, unedited performance. The musicians certainly ought to be eligible though it simply isn't customary to call them virtuosi. Yet it doesn't seem right to call Michael Jordan a basketball virtuoso. True, sports are not typically considered an artistic endeavor. But what difference is there between watching a tennis match and a judo match? Not a whole lot. But there is a big difference between watching a judo match and a wushu form, like in the linked young Jet Li video. Insofar as the demonstration of a martial art or other athletic activity is an expression of the practitioner, I think the term, virtuoso, can be applied. If it is simply one athlete reacting to the actions of the other athlete(s), I think there is no art. But perhaps this gets into an argument over the nature of art.
So these are my opinions. To summarize, the virtuoso is one who demonstrates considerable skill (not necessarily depth or sensitivity) in live performance of an artistic (i.e. expressive) nature. I am sure there will be those who disagree with me, and I would love to hear your arguments. Please, indulge me. I leave you with two last thoughts. Is it fair for our criteria to be different for performers from different times or backgrounds? When do we stop calling a child a prodigy and start calling her a virtuoso?
In my experience, virtuoso has meant having such a command of something as to be able push the limits of that thing and to have enough mastery and aesthetic maturity to be able to improvise and expand upon it and create something new.
ReplyDeleteAs with jazz, the early "virtuoso" period was characterized by artists like Jelly Roll Morton who, though most often not formally trained to read music, twisted melodic standards and influences in their performances off the cuff and expanded jazz in previously unexplored directions. Moreover, beyond their improvisational skills, they typically performed in meters and with an execution that other very good jazz musicians couldn't reproduce. Jazz music may not be your bag but this is what "virtuoso" brings to mind for me.
I think the trouble with more loosely applying the term virtuoso to other artforms from poetry to basketball is that they attribute different titles to their virtuosi according to the dictates of their respective conventions. "Icon", "master" and "whiz" are some titles that have been used synonymously though they might be broader in scope than "virtuoso". Ultimately I think the distinction between specifically prodigy and virtuoso lies in the ability to brilliantly mimic and the ability to improvise, to create and to surpass current standards. I'll stress the use of "current" here because there can be a disparity in trying to establish virtuosity amongst artists from different times. Has J. S. Bach been surpassed in his own right? But are we really *trying* to push the limits of baroque nowadays? And as with my reference to jazz music, jazz has evolved since J. R. M. and his contemporaries performed. In hindsight, one could claim that they could have composed/performed better. But that is easy to do in hindsight.
It is also difficult for me to admit here that some extremely gifted performers don't achieve virtuoso status in my mind because they don't add something new to the mix, that they are merely very skilled and accomplished. Watching Frida Leider or Christa Ludwig sing "Abscheulicher...", a very challenging aria that few can master, I feel like I'm cheating these performers by not bestowing them with the status of virtuosi. But in my mind there has to be a new dimension to what they contribute to warrant the title, beyond just performing the same things better than others.
Wow, this ended up being a very long comment. I hope you're ok with it. :)
Thanks for your comment. I hope you won't begrudge me for responding. I notice you're far more stingy with the term than I, and you are certainly entitled. But I have to disagree with adding improvisational skill to our criteria. Given this, practically no classical performers would qualify. Certainly many are capable, but just as a Shakespearean actor has prepared the exact inflection for every syllable in order to convey exactly the sense that is intended, a soloist performing a concerto has done the same. Even the cadenzas, which are ostensibly improvisatory sections, are written out ahead of time. Also, some jazz legends like Duke Ellington wrote fully composed pieces with no improvisation. Ultimately, I think context must be considered. I wholeheartedly agree that jazz is the domain of many a virtuoso, but I think they must be judged by their own, separate criteria. A boxer isn't a sorry fighter because he can't kick you in the head.
ReplyDeleteAlso, perhaps I was unclear, but I did not mean to apply the term to poets or basketball players. In the end I decided that the term should only be applied to those who are cherished for their skill in artistic performance. I think it's acceptable to use the term outside its normal domain. No calls an eggplant a berry, but it is what it is. But no one calls baba ganoush a berry either because the term doesn't apply to prepared foods. That's why I tried to focus on the boundaries of the definition.
Finally, the prodigy question is still an interesting one to me. If one can do all those things you say at the age of 12, then do we call her a prodigy or a virtuoso? I think the former would likely be applied. So is this ageism? Is she allowed to be called a virtuoso at 18? 21? Or are there other criteria? And I think we can agree that not all prodigies become virtuosi, and not all virtuosi were once prodigies.